Misunderstanding and Correction or Misrepresentation and Deception

Let me get this straight...Your position is that because PD wrote this line:

quote:

---

I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.

---

directly after all this from you:

quote:

---

But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

---

Then that means that she *had* to be saying that "There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns" was the appropriate way to consture it?Also, you're saying that it is impossible that she was responding to "But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days?" with a disagreement that 'no, it wasn't narrow, it was reasonable'?How could you possibly be so confident unless you had the ability to read her mind?To me, she intended either this: or this: And in no way do I see her as agreeing with this line whatsoever:

quote:

---

There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

---

Seriously, how the hell not? Nobody *BUT* her can know what she meant... you've got to be the most arrogant person on this board now that Rrhain is gone... for good I hope.Seriously, how can you possible think that you know more about what a person meant than the person who actually wrote it? That's gotta be the stupidest things I've every seen you type on this forum.I don't think you believe that one bit but are instead just being a cocky little asshole troll. I think I might just have lost all confidence in believing anything you will ever write again. This is all just one big joke to you and you're sitting there laughing your ass off because people are actually taking you a little bit seriously and thinking you mean what you write.You *are* a arrogant jerk.

Not necessarily. For example, in the post in question, PD was responding to the first line and not the paragraph that followed it. Not necessarily. She *did* mean to reply in the negetive, and she *did not* write a negative sentence that immediatly followed the question but istead used a positive sentence that followed the paragraph after the line she was replying to... Bullshit. It is impossible for you to distinguish what she actually meant better than herself, as exemplified by this thread. It was simply an error in your interpretation.I do think that her reply was worded badly, badly formatted, and even a little bit ambiguous, but its very obvious what she intended to say. Especially in light of her explanation of herself. Trolling lies. Bullshit. Ergo, no confession has ever been used in court because the defendant must be a different person than the one that confessed. I'm not detecting any honesty here. This isn't literary criticism and the author is capable of speaking for herself to tell us what she actually meant and exactly how you've misinterpreted it. You couldn't be more obviously incorrect nor more blatanlty showing your unreasonableness and inability to admit errors of interpretation. Irrelevant. We're not judging the success of a work of literary art. I believe you've never studied this and simply looked it up in wiki, possibly for the first time ever today. Are also irrelevant.Besides, we have PD here, herself, telling us what she meant and clearly exposing how and why you misinterpreted it. You are the only person who cannot see it. Obviously totally false and the last ditch resort of a lying troll who can't bring himself to admit that he was wrong in interpreting something. Especially not when he's in this deep. You think that your interpretation of some words somebody pecked into a text box is more accurate than their own explanation of what they meant and where you went wrong.The arragance is blatant. Not in the slightest. You think that you are right and that there's no possible way that you could be wrong about this. Or you're just trolling.I honestly think its both. I can hardly believe a single word you type anymore.

So, what do you think is wrong with him?I'm doubting his sincerity... that he doesn't really believe that he's right, he's just arguing for the sake of it. As if he's just trolling.Or do you think that he really thinks he's right here? And if so, doesn't that stem from arrogance and/or conceit?

Pussy! I know, right!I think its just hilarious that he used to bash heads with Holmes and Rrhain for doing the exact same shit that he is doing here now.Oh, and the whole " I used to study english " bullshit is soooo Rrhain.... ... "I was trained to interpret writing so I know better what they mean"... Remember that stuff?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Pride? Big time. I used to think he was just an arrogant jerk who really did think he was right, but now I'm convinced that he's doing this on purpose. Yeah...

Against my better judgement, I'm gonna try one more time to explain this to you. No, its not. Maybe colors will help: The red line is a response to the red line and the yellow line is a response to the yellow lines.Get it? It is obvious to everyone but you that you are the one who made the error in your interpretation of what PD wrote.You thought that her line in red was a reply to your lines in yellow, but it wasn't. I think she has a decent point and that its not idiotic. Its that "worshiping a false god" meant something specific to the hebrews, i.e. actually performing legitamate worship of a god, rather than the loosely defined way its used today where it can even just mean "loving money". She goes further to point out that this modern interpretation is a dilution of what it is supposed to mean to "worship". If you follow through the context with KB: To which you reply: and her: What doesn't make sense is why you would think that she is agreeing to something that is the exact opposite of what her whole point has been the whole time.But I realize that its more important for you to "score points" and "win", so you'll use any tactic to get there.You go ahead and assume that she's agreeing to a point that goes directly against her whole point in the thread so that you can later use that in a "Gotcha" moment where you point out the contradiction.You purposefully twist your opponents words so that they work better for you. I mean, here you are doing it right here: Everybody know thats I meant it was obvious that she intended to disagree with you, but you turn that around on me so that it agrees with you.That's because you're palying a game here. You try too hard to make your opponent be wrong that it gets in the way of you understanding them properly.I mean, take this: You're more interested in "boxing her in" and "catching a contradiction" than actually understanding her and having a discussion.I don't even believe you that you think that she really intended to agree with you on the narrow way to interpret it. You're just holding onto that to save face. Because this time you fucked it up and everybody can see it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.